Hasty v. Hyatt Corporation
- Lin
- 3:25-cv-02662
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bradley J. Hasty v. Hyatt Corporation, Judge Lin granted Hyatt’s motion to consolidate Hasty’s wage claims with his related PAGA case.
Bradley J. Hasty and Hyatt Corporation, as well as the claims and proceedings in Hasty’s related PAGA case. The related case was closed administratively for future filings, which must be made in this case.
What happened
Bradley J. Hasty v. Hyatt Corporation involves a putative class action alleging state-law wage, hour, and labor violations against Hyatt Corporation. Hyatt removed the case from California state court to federal court.
The court considered whether to combine this case with Hasty’s related case seeking civil penalties under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA. The opinion says both cases involve overlapping factual allegations and common legal and factual questions.
Judge Rita F. Lin granted Hyatt’s motion to consolidate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The related case was consolidated for all purposes, future filings must be made in this case, the Clerk was directed to close the related case, and Hasty was ordered to file a consolidated amended complaint by January 7, 2026.
The detailed version
- Hasty v. Hyatt Corporation · No. 3:25-cv-02662
- Lin
- Dec. 8, 2025
Background
Bradley J. Hasty brought a putative class action against Hyatt Corporation in California state court. He alleged state-law wage, hour, and labor violations. Hyatt removed the case to federal court.
Hasty also filed a related case seeking civil penalties under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, known as PAGA. The court considered consolidating that case with this one. The opinion states that both cases involve overlapping factual allegations and common questions of law and fact.
Motion and Analysis
The order states that Hyatt moved to consolidate the cases and that Hasty opposed the motion. It also states that Hasty argued the motion was procedurally defective because Hyatt had not filed a separate notice of motion in the related case. The court rejected that argument because both cases were before the same judge, who was aware of the motion and its proposed effect on both cases.
The court concluded that consolidation was appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). It noted that district courts have broad discretion over consolidation and that PAGA claims are regularly tried with or connected to Labor Code claims. The court also stated that Hasty did not dispute the existence of common questions of law and fact and did not claim that consolidation would cause delay, confusion, or prejudice.
Ruling
Judge Rita F. Lin granted Hyatt’s motion to consolidate. The related case, No. 25-cv-04516-RFL, was consolidated with this case for all purposes. The court ordered that all future submissions be filed only in No. 25-cv-02662-RFL and directed the Clerk to close the related case. Hasty was ordered to file a consolidated amended complaint by January 7, 2026.
Effect of the Order
The order combines the two cases for purposes of proceeding in federal court; it does not decide the underlying wage, hour, labor, or PAGA claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.